Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at
Thu Mar 14 17:50:22 EST 2002

>Ian, I resent your implication that my "analysis is not from the text".
>I am trying to understand the text according to the best possible
>analysis of the Hebrew.

You don't seem to offer *any* analysis based on 
linguistic phenomena.

>In the two translations you just offered to Paul you confirm what I
>thought you were saying earlier, that in your opinion the whole of verse
>2 is dependent on bereshit. 

I'll retract it at the moment if you are prepared 
to deal with the major concern. You avoid, yes, 
avoid, avoid the principal problem of the phrase 
br'$yt, which I continue to underline is the fact 
that such constructions *usually* govern VSO 
clauses. You have maintained radio silence on that 
matter from the start. This implies either that 
you accept it or you've got nothing so say against 
it but reject it for other reasons.

I wrote in my previous post that there are two 
possible ways (perhaps more) of dealing with the 
situation of the first clause being governed by 
b-noun. However, it is the fact that b-noun does 
govern VSO clauses that is the essence of the 
analysis. You simply do not deal with it. You 
seem to be sidetracked with ancilliary problems, 
ie you require evidence of b-noun governing 
longer structures, when you know that you can have 
recursive clause structures, ie subordinate 
clauses subordinating others. I will repeat though 
you seem restricted to dealing with secondary 

>This is the hypothesis I am arguing against.

I hereby abandon it now (to be taken up later) 
when you have done the analysis you should be 

>So when you say that I "require for some unclear reason that the first
>verse be syntactically attached to what follows," the reason is simply
>that that is what you have proposed. 

Peter, you are avoiding the real problem. It is 
apparently a diversionary tactic.

>There may be an alternative
>hypothesis that verse 1 is a detached fragment like a descriptive
>heading, but we are not discussing that one.

It may be. What I proposed, and please read what 
I said in the first posts, was that br'$yt 
governed the first clause. That is the subject. 
I gather as you have nothing to say about it 
that you must accept it. Am I right? If not, 
why not?

>You claim that I am "not willing to deal with the numerous cases of b-
>noun governed clauses". I accept that there are many such cases where
>there is one clause with an infinitive construct, and perhaps a few
>cases of a sequence of clauses starting with an infinitive construct
>continued by a WAYYIQTOL. 

OK, is that the case in Gen 1:1? If not, 
why not?

When we have dealt with Gen 1:1 we should be 
able to continue onto the wider context.


>I looked at one specific example, Numbers 7:1,
>and showed that it is ambiguous and your understanding has been rejected
>by two quite independent recent translation teams. 

(You might like to consider Eccl 12:3 for later as 
well. bywm plus a zillion subordinated clauses.)

>No one has offered an
>example in which more than one clause is governed by b-noun and the
>second clause is not WAYYIQTOL. Until they do, I continue to maintain
>that your analysis of Genesis 1:1-2 is syntactically unique. Mine is
>also unique, I accept, but lexical uniqueness is far more common than
>syntactic uniqueness.

(Subordinated clauses, such as those governined by ky 
can reflect the requirement you put, but you 
arbitrarily exclude it. It is the subordination 
which is important not what subordinates it.)

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list